Preventing people from getting guns through legal means doesn't prevent people from getting guns through illegal means.
Guess which ones are more harmful?
Guess which ones are more harmful?
Question for people Pro-guns....
- Thread starter Moth_Monk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.J Tyran said:
It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.
No, the 2nd amendment does not say that only militiaman have the right to bear arms, it says "the people's right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed." the meaning is obvious because this same document uses "the people" to mean every citizen. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . ."Zakarath said:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
The second ammendment has upheld that the 2nd ammendment protects the individuals right to own a weapon regardless of militia involvement. I would have thought that obvious since none of the other ammendments in the bill of rights have a requirement for being eligible for it, and considering the wording of the declaration of independence: ". . . and are endowed by their creator with certaininalienable rights.
There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".
Further, guns like that are exactly the guns people need for self defense, and often hunting. Criminals carry weapons like this and even more dangerous fully automatic weapons, to try to stop them with a bolt action rifle is idiotic. Further, many dangerous game hunters like AR-15s because the quick follow up shots save their lives if they're charged by the bear/boar/moose/whatever they just shot. Also, the AR-15 is absolutely ideal for sport shooting because of the high accuracy, the massive selection of possible upgrades, and the extremely low recoil.
Try and find a hobby with less dangerous corollaries? What corollaries? There is no statistically significant link between gun control and reduced violent crime. Further, more children die in the US from playing school football than from guns. More people die of smoking, or obesity, or medical malpractice than from guns. Nearly as many people die in car crashes, and if you exclude suicides, cars kill almost 3 times as many people as guns. If you count just accidents, you get about 32,000 car deaths a year, compared to less than 1,000 gun deaths. Almost as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by gun crime. Even using anti-gun agenda estimates, guns are used for self defense almost 43 times more often than to take a life. The vast majority of gun crime is done using weapons that were not acquired legally. There is no reason to ban guns or to further restrict guns in the US, just scare tactics.
You're correct. Well, i don't know about the death tolls from violent crime, but despite having 1/5 the population of the US(about) the UK has more than 1/2 the violent crime that the US does.rollerfox88 said:I also live in England, and have been stabbed twice. It may be the case (I dont have any figures on any of this) that people are more likely to die in attacks in America as guns tend to do more damage, but I would put money (if I had any) on the proportion of violent crimes being higher here than in America. Or USA at least.Moth_Monk said:Yep this thread had to get posted.
Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what
The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?
The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.
Captcha: hunky-dory
I <3 Captcha's irony.
Oh really?:J Tyran said:
Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.RaNDM G said:
An estimated more than 70 million gun owners in the US owning an estimated 300+ million guns. yeah, people just don't seem to get this, don't know why? It's pretty simple.Jegsimmons said:
Ugh, sadly, this topic just doesn't surprise me. I can't think of a single argument against to OT that hasn't already been stated in this thread and thousands of others. Well, I guess I haven't seen anything about the difference between changing a law in the US versus changing a law in the UK. People seem awfully willing to take two single data points and draw a cause and effect relation. I thought this site was supposed to be filled with objective sciencey people.
But against the idea itself are so many reasons not to. We banned drinking and driving and it hasn't exactly stopped drunk driving, something that kills a ton of people every year, so banning guns without taking some sort of martial action to confiscate every gun in America probably wouldn't go that well. And besides that, cars seem to be a pretty bad deal, they're dangerous, they pollute, and they get used far more regularly than guns, but no ones scrambling to get them banned. I know it isn't a perfect analogy, but the fact that people are a lot more attached and familiar with cars does give them a bias towards them. If they were raised bay a dad that took them out hunting or to the shooting range, or even by a cop who taught them proper use and respect for a firearm, they'd probably see it differently.
Also, stop saying that handguns are only meant to kill. You obviously haven't gone to a shooting range. Any guns purpose is to expel bullets at what the operator wants. Handguns offer a unique challenge, different styles of shooting, and different cost options for a shooter. Saying a handgun's only purpose is to kill is like saying a computer's only purpose is to develop atomic weapons.
But against the idea itself are so many reasons not to. We banned drinking and driving and it hasn't exactly stopped drunk driving, something that kills a ton of people every year, so banning guns without taking some sort of martial action to confiscate every gun in America probably wouldn't go that well. And besides that, cars seem to be a pretty bad deal, they're dangerous, they pollute, and they get used far more regularly than guns, but no ones scrambling to get them banned. I know it isn't a perfect analogy, but the fact that people are a lot more attached and familiar with cars does give them a bias towards them. If they were raised bay a dad that took them out hunting or to the shooting range, or even by a cop who taught them proper use and respect for a firearm, they'd probably see it differently.
Also, stop saying that handguns are only meant to kill. You obviously haven't gone to a shooting range. Any guns purpose is to expel bullets at what the operator wants. Handguns offer a unique challenge, different styles of shooting, and different cost options for a shooter. Saying a handgun's only purpose is to kill is like saying a computer's only purpose is to develop atomic weapons.
D'oh you caught me outlacktheknack said:I presume you knew I meant "for self defense", and were being sarcastic?EclipseoftheDarkSun said:Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenallacktheknack said:
.
Why not stop outlawing drugs and educate people about their pros and cons then.. Isn't that comparable to guns, apart from not being in the constitution?Ryotknife said:
Everything that needs to be said in response to this, had already been said.J Tyran said:
One thing I'd like to point out is that out of a fairly lengthy post that I have written, you pick off the ONLY section that was neither thought of, nor written by me.
Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.spartan231490 said:
Not necessarily, the problem is very widespread, covering a massive area over several states, with very low population densities for much of it.EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
Big problems like that, it's very easy to decide against doing anything about it, and hope that someone else will instead, especially as the contributions of even a fairly large group would make little or no real difference.
Now, a government action, probably at the state or federal level, would seem to be the way to go about it, but state and federal governments have lots of more important things to worry about, and probably always will.
It doesn't help that you have feral pigs in very big national parks where hunting is illegal as well.
I'm sure it's been said, but to throw two more cents into the overflowing two cent pile...
Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.
Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.
Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.
Guns are used to kill people. Not every person buys a gun with the hopes of killing someone. I assume it gives them a sense of security in their lives, where anything can and does happen. It's a right that is given to American citizens and some people wish to take advantage of all of their rights.
Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment is a load of horse shit. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it was also written in the 18th century, when a gun fired 3 rounds a minute and missed brick walls from 30 feet away. This should really be a non-issue, but because some people feel that their freedom is imposed upon because "IT'S THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE", guns will probably be a part of American culture until that mentality is forcibly changed.
Gun control regulations are never going to be perfect, even if guns are made illegal. If someone wants to get something, they can, don't be naive enough to think they can't. Guns are tied to freedom in the US, and because of that, they're tied to good deeds instead of bad ones. Until Americans figure out that much more harm has been done with firearms, they'll always be legal.
Well, if the NRA weren't so paranoid about fighting every possible restriction on gun ownership, perhaps the Democrats wouldn't be 'spending all their time' trying to ban high end pistols etc.Weentastic said:
Obviously assault rifles and sniper rifles result in greater numbers of deaths when they are used by the occasional person who snaps and is in possession of them. And yeah I think there could be more preventative measures taken to address the causes rather than the symptoms of the problem.
There's no real point even bringing up the discussion.
If guns are made illegal and all guns are turned in, you've immediately removed the first three means for criminals to get guns. As for black markets, which are the chief means for criminals to get guns in the UK, they still have to get their guns from countries that don't have heavy gun relation, meaning that if those countries also restricted guns, and better efforts are made to restrict the import of guns into the country, black markets struggle to find supplies.
So there is your answer. Note that I am not actually endorsing the removal of guns in America. Besides being utterly impossible to get it done for political and practical reasons, I really think that with just the right amount of gun control, Americans can keep their guns and stay safe.
Philosophically, however, guns place an extreme amount of responsibility and power on the owner. I don't think you'll be able to overthrow any tyrannical governments with it (contrary to what is commonly said), but it is enough to give you power over, say, the lives of a theatre full of people. Whenever you give any individual that much power, you're taking a huge risk. Back in the formative days of the early US, had guns been anywhere near as affordable and effective as they are in the modern US, I have doubts America would have ever seen the second ammendment. That's the consequence of basing people's rights off of a document written before the existance of drive-bys and shooting sprees.
How do criminals normally get guns? By buying them legally, getting them through a proxy (who can buy them legally), stealing them from legitimate owners, or from black market gun runners.matrix3509 said:
If guns are made illegal and all guns are turned in, you've immediately removed the first three means for criminals to get guns. As for black markets, which are the chief means for criminals to get guns in the UK, they still have to get their guns from countries that don't have heavy gun relation, meaning that if those countries also restricted guns, and better efforts are made to restrict the import of guns into the country, black markets struggle to find supplies.
So there is your answer. Note that I am not actually endorsing the removal of guns in America. Besides being utterly impossible to get it done for political and practical reasons, I really think that with just the right amount of gun control, Americans can keep their guns and stay safe.
Philosophically, however, guns place an extreme amount of responsibility and power on the owner. I don't think you'll be able to overthrow any tyrannical governments with it (contrary to what is commonly said), but it is enough to give you power over, say, the lives of a theatre full of people. Whenever you give any individual that much power, you're taking a huge risk. Back in the formative days of the early US, had guns been anywhere near as affordable and effective as they are in the modern US, I have doubts America would have ever seen the second ammendment. That's the consequence of basing people's rights off of a document written before the existance of drive-bys and shooting sprees.
Even if you wanted to take away guns from people in the U.S....could you? How many people would say, "Oh, the government is oppressing me by eliminating the second amendment--just what I got this thing for!"? I'm guessing it would be a sizable amount of people, even if only 1% of gun owners were to take this stance. The casualties for the police and military alone should be enough deterrent. Even if you were to quell the insurrection of gun owners, how many would stay silent while the streets (metaphorically) are littered with bodies?
If you try to take the guns, they'll give you the bullets, as that strange bumpersticker says.
If you try to take the guns, they'll give you the bullets, as that strange bumpersticker says.
I personally suspect that was a political decision.Weentastic said:
You have one group saying that want to restrict guns, you have another group that doesn't, so you make a law restricting a select bunch of random scary looking things that don't matter, so both groups are sort of happy.
Wanna know what's even stupider? Several states maintain identical bans despite the fact that the very administration that enacted the ban, along with half a dozen anti-gun committees have said that it didn't fucking work and that it punished 0 actual criminals while criminalizing innocent gun owners. Can you believe that shit?Weentastic said:
Gun rights as far as I understand are good in 2 ways, one in personal protection and secondly militia.
the "militia" is a last line of defense for a nation, suffice it to say an armed militia is far more effective then an unarmed one, and in the improbable event that a militia is ever needed in the united states I'm sure those that are anti gun will be happy the rednecks were stockpiling arms. (hows that for generalization)
The fact is gun restriction only works at preventing the legal element from purchasing a gun. In the tragic event in Colorado it wasn't the lack of gun restriction that caused the tragedy to happen. For the most part he bought all his ammunition online, (where by the way you can also purchase a gun) It was that he was a mentally disturbed individual that caused the crime, and had he started slashing people with a katana we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Gun rights in the end protect against tyranny.
At least thats my two sense.
Do I own a gun, no, would I in the future yes.
the "militia" is a last line of defense for a nation, suffice it to say an armed militia is far more effective then an unarmed one, and in the improbable event that a militia is ever needed in the united states I'm sure those that are anti gun will be happy the rednecks were stockpiling arms. (hows that for generalization)
The fact is gun restriction only works at preventing the legal element from purchasing a gun. In the tragic event in Colorado it wasn't the lack of gun restriction that caused the tragedy to happen. For the most part he bought all his ammunition online, (where by the way you can also purchase a gun) It was that he was a mentally disturbed individual that caused the crime, and had he started slashing people with a katana we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Gun rights in the end protect against tyranny.
At least thats my two sense.
Do I own a gun, no, would I in the future yes.
I did read your entire post but your first line caught me.JWAN said:
You hunt Game with a handgun? That would require getting up close to the animal and point blank shooting - that is not very sporting.